Not quite. There are a couple words I would take umbrage with, since it is by the grace of God alone through faith and the drawing of the Spirit that men can come to faith.

Quote:

Interesting, because that seems at tension with what Arminius and Molina would've thought. Bill posted the Articles of Remonstrance. In them the faith was explicitly wrought by the Holy Spirit.

Here it is again:Article III ó That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."

Now, this isn't an infallible document like the word of God, nor is it a creed like the Nicene creed. But recognize that popular Arminianism in the English speaking world tends not to agree with this 3rd Article, and it's a common "Arminian" view even if Arminius would've found it wrong.

If they do not accept this, they are not Arminian. I say this in much the way the reformed can not reject the WCF because it is the defining document that actually defines the category. As pointed out, historically, the remonstrances are the key point of what defines Arminianism. Because people attribute heresies to a title and strawman a defined historical position does not make that terminology correct.

Quote:

If that's true, how is it really God electing? A friend of mine calls this a "divine tagback" -- you may have tagged God (chose God), but God can win tag because he can tag you back ahead of time. Crude analogy, but it does raise the question: How can this be called divine election of man and not just God's recognition of human election of God?

I think you understand the idea of prevenient grace, and why I would vehemently disagree with this assessment.

Quote:

Why is God not sovereign in this way? It's definitely an interesting thought to consider. I'm genuinely asking, why hold this? This seems like a very particular place to say God isn't sovereign. Where in the Bible would it suggest this? (Are you familiar with passages that might suggest the opposite?)

I agree, since the concept of God bending wills is very clear in specific instances in scripture.

Also, Austinn, please hold to your own view. As it is impossible to talk about a constantly shifting idea stream that you deny. I am perfectly willing to spitball as well. But in my view, some of the key things are knowing where the pale of orthodoxy is.

Conditional Sovereignty as you are describing it is not something Arminianism would hold. Never has. I would disagree with Athanatos, that the 3rd article of remonstrance is required for Arminianism since the remonstrances are the defining characteristics of the Arminian view. It is much akin to trying to be a Calvinist while denying total depravity.

Conditional Election is only a word used to describe predestination by foreknowledge of God. Predestination by Foreknowledge IS something Arminianism holds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I would state that if you disagree with the remonstrances, (except that I believe since point 5 is ambiguous, that one could respectfully take any position on perseverance as long as one respects other points of view from scripture.) then you are by definition, not Arminian as the remonstrances are the defining document

Ok, well I apologize for considering myself an Arminian then. I will just consider myself a None-of-the-Above for now on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Austinn: You can't say Arminianism takes all forms and reject its defining characteristics historically. Just because someone calls themselves that does not mean they actually hold to an Arminian position.

All I was saying, was that I know many people who claim to be Arminian and are uneducated claiming there is no predestination. I am not saying they are right in doing so.

__________________ "He hath given me rest by his sorrow, and life by his death." ~John Bunyan

Conditional Election is only a word used to describe predestination by foreknowledge of God. Predestination by Foreknowledge IS something Arminianism holds.

conditional election =/= conditional sovereignty. In Arminianism, conditional election (which I still don't like as a term much, as I would prefer more precise terms which are descriptive of the position, rather than a counter to a counter.)

I prefer election through define foreknowledge. It would be how God is exercising his sovereignty. That is a far cry from claiming he is limited. Right now I have every capability to run naked through the street with a kitchen knife while painted hot pink. Nothing other than my will constrains me from doing so. I am not limited to not be able to do that, I choose not to.

Quote:

Ok, well I apologize for considering myself an Arminian then. I will just consider myself a None-of-the-Above for now on.

All I was saying, was that I know many people who claim to be Arminian and are uneducated claiming there is no predestination. I am not saying they are right in doing so.

There are those, and unfortunately they do fit into some categories. IME, this topic has been discussed enough throughout church history that there is a formal title for just about every position.

The biggest problem with your position in my view is that scripture describes us as spiritually dead without

conditional election =/= conditional sovereignty. In Arminianism, conditional election (which I still don't like as a term much, as I would prefer more precise terms which are descriptive of the position, rather than a counter to a counter.)

I prefer election through define foreknowledge. It would be how God is exercising his sovereignty. That is a far cry from claiming he is limited. Right now I have every capability to run naked through the street with a kitchen knife while painted hot pink. Nothing other than my will constrains me from doing so. I am not limited to not be able to do that, I choose not to.

I do understand what you are saying, but I don't agree that election is by foreknowledge. In my opinion Romans 9 makes that clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

There are those, and unfortunately they do fit into some categories. IME, this topic has been discussed enough throughout church history that there is a formal title for just about every position.

What would the formal title for these people be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

The biggest problem with your position in my view is that scripture describes us as spiritually dead without

I believe in this. . . .

__________________ "He hath given me rest by his sorrow, and life by his death." ~John Bunyan

I do understand what you are saying, but I don't agree that election is by foreknowledge. In my opinion Romans 9 makes that clear.

How do you deal with Romans 8 &1 Peter 1 then? They are pretty explicit. And Romans 8 is directly in the context of chapter 9.

Quote:

What would the formal title for these people be?

Depends on exact beliefs. No predestination would be open theism, which is a view that is really pretty incompatible with scripture. More commonly, I would call it cognitive dissonance, where people believe two opposed things which are not compatible.

Quote:

I believe in this. . . .

If we are dead in sin, we cannot exercise faith without the grace of God and the drawing of the Spirit. So if a person is dead in sin, they can't have faith.

How do you deal with Romans 8 &1 Peter 1 then? They are pretty explicit. And Romans 8 is directly in the context of chapter 9.

Can you please clarify which verses you are referring to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

If we are dead in sin, we cannot exercise faith without the grace of God and the drawing of the Spirit. So if a person is dead in sin, they can't have faith.

This is what we disagree with. I believe that even though we are dead spiritually, we can still realize our need for a Saviour. I also believe that the Holy Spirit can work in the life of the spiritually dead.

__________________ "He hath given me rest by his sorrow, and life by his death." ~John Bunyan

This is what we disagree with. I believe that even though we are dead spiritually, we can still realize our need for a Saviour. I also believe that the Holy Spirit can work in the life of the spiritually dead.

Could you explain how you believe this works? I realize that on some level we're all grasping at straws and cannot fully understand some things. However, I don't see (understand) how someone can be spiritually dead and recognize the need for a Savior. The two things seem exclusive. It's not until the Holy Spirit "nudges" us that we can see our sorry state of affairs.

To put it simply, if you aren't aware that your lost, you don't know you need someone to save you.

Could you explain how you believe this works? I realize that on some level we're all grasping at straws and cannot fully understand some things. However, I don't see (understand) how someone can be spiritually dead and recognize the need for a Savior. The two things seem exclusive. It's not until the Holy Spirit "nudges" us that we can see our sorry state of affairs.

To put it simply, if you aren't aware that your lost, you don't know you need someone to save you.

Like I said, I think that the Holy Spirit can work in the life of the spiritually dead.
1. We are born with human nature and are spiritually dead
2. The Spirit nudges our dead spirit to recognize our need
3. We find faith to ask Jesus to fill our need
4. We are spiritually awakened.

__________________ "He hath given me rest by his sorrow, and life by his death." ~John Bunyan

If we are dead in sin, we cannot exercise faith without the grace of God and the drawing of the Spirit. So if a person is dead in sin, they can't have faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austinn

This is what we disagree with. I believe that even though we are dead spiritually, we can still realize our need for a Saviour. I also believe that the Holy Spirit can work in the life of the spiritually dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austinn

Like I said, I think that the Holy Spirit can work in the life of the spiritually dead.
1. We are born with human nature and are spiritually dead
2. The Spirit nudges our dead spirit to recognize our need
3. We find faith to ask Jesus to fill our need
4. We are spiritually awakened.

Isn't that pretty much what Bill is saying? In your explanation here you seem to be agreeing with him, especially in your point #2. Not trying to put words in his mouth (or yours) but he's essentially saying that it is the grace of God that causes His Spirit to reach out to us. I'm sure he can expound more when he's up here.

Isn't that pretty much what Bill is saying? In your explanation here you seem to be agreeing with him, especially in your point #2. Not trying to put words in his mouth (or yours) but he's essentially saying that it is the grace of God that causes His Spirit to reach out to us. I'm sure he can expound more when he's up here.

My view differs in that I believe faith is something that we can express even when we are dead spiritually as long as the Holy Spirit has revealed to us our need for a Saviour.
From what I'm reading (I may be wrong) he believes that faith is something that the Spirit does through the man and that we cannot have faith at all on our own.
My view isn't very far off from his, only slightly.

__________________ "He hath given me rest by his sorrow, and life by his death." ~John Bunyan

My view differs in that I believe faith is something that we can express even when we are dead spiritually as long as the Holy Spirit has revealed to us our need for a Saviour.
From what I'm reading (I may be wrong) he believes that faith is something that the Spirit does through the man and that we cannot have faith at all on our own.
My view isn't very far off from his, only slightly.

Would you agree that the Spirit must first give that nudge before we can respond? Would you agree that without His prompting we cannot come to faith?

I guess this is the basis of my entire view on Predestination. I believe our coming to Christ is a perfect harmony of our freewill and God's Soveriegnty. He starts the process through His spirit nudging us and then we respond (using our will) to this nudging. I also believe that God uses the saved (through the spirit) to nudge the unsaved as well. Predestination is not an excuse to become apathetic and not share the news with others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leboman

Would you agree that the Spirit must first give that nudge before we can respond? Would you agree that without His prompting we cannot come to faith?

I would

__________________ "He hath given me rest by his sorrow, and life by his death." ~John Bunyan